The issue of chemical weapons must go beyond Syria

The issue of Syrian chemical weapons , now at the center of international discussions , it must also be extended to other countries, which , like Damascus , has not signed the International Convention of 1993 and also to those who, despite having signed such an agreement, not they then did follow the necessary ratification within their respective national legislation . Thus in addition to Syria, which is now known, have not signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development , Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction , also North Korea , Egypt , Angola, South Sudan and Lebanon , while the agreement has not been ratified by Burma and Israel. In addition, the disposal of stockpiles in the possession of the states that have signed and ratified the agreement has not yet been fully completed. Two examples , which concern the two countries at the center of discussions these days: Russia and the USA , who despite having started the destruction of chemical weapons in their possession , are far from ending it , being , in fact , possess arsenals chemicals like the non-signatory nations and therefore also of Syria. The question is difficult to answer , also because of the geopolitical dislocation of the countries holders of chemical weapons and their internal stability , elements that make up a high percentage of potential danger to world stability . Egypt , where the chemical arsenals , until a few months ago, they were in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, Lebanon, where the government will have the same Hezbollah and Syria, which are neighboring and bordering Israel , constitute a regional hub of chemical weapons in one of the most unstable parts of the planet. There was talk of the need for these countries, maybe Egypt aside, to have an element of war able to counter the military power , which is also nuclear , of Tel Aviv , a factor that seems indisputable in a sort of balance of terror in the Middle East version . If Syria , for reasons certainly not spontaneous , the Russian proposal will comply fully and become the de facto party to the 1993 Convention , the other countries do not show any intention of destroying its chemical power . This fact puts Israel at the center of the discussion , as Tel Aviv has confirmed that it will not ratify the treaty still within their own arrangements , for the reason that , in addition to those of the states , there are arsenals not registered and therefore not official in the hands of groups terrorist , who claim to be enemies of Israel . The reference appears headed right for Hezbollah , which would draw from the arsenals of the Lebanese state , and perhaps also from the Syrian army. Israel’s intention is to balance the chemical warfare capabilities of his opponents with equal force of the same type . We understand how the balance on which the Middle East region is precarious and subject to severe risk of explosion, especially if put in relation with the Syrian War and the threat uttered several times by Assad , to widen the conflict. Not that a conventional war is less dangerous , but the availability of these weapons in the hands of forces under pressure , which intend to turn the tide of a battle , they only put a great concern , especially for the civilian population , which would the most affected. The possession of chemical weapons , although for different reasons, for North Korea , which South Sudan and Angola , is highly dangerous situations that need to be remedied . The occasion of the Syrian issue , puts it this way on the international stage an opportunity to widen the debate of the total destruction of chemical weapons , and with it the corollary of a hazardous situation that does not seem to have been quite fully grasped . Certainly the urgency of preventing an American military intervention has , for the moment the upper hand, however, the need for a full involvement of non-signatory nations of the Chemical Weapons Convention , is an equally important need . In the absence of an effective diplomatic action by the United Nations, which seem to be passive spectators , it remains to be hoped that there is a push in this direction , by other international actors , able to take charge of the reopening of negotiations essential for peace in the world .